I was merely substantiating your accusation. Mere mortals [with or without God] ask questions. Why then do particular individuals ask the ones that they do? And why do particular individuals answer these questions as they do and not in some other way?

How is that relevant to the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?

You're lost in details. If science was as concerned with details as you are, then it would not be possible to discover anything.

Like you, in the end, I really don't know. And the answers are almost certainly [in many crucial respects] beyond my control; and involve factors which circumscribe [circumvent] my capacity to decide.

I know some things and not others while you don't seem to know anything. That's the critical difference.

And [again] all I can do in places like this is to probe the extent to which others are able to yank themselves up out of that particular hole; and then are able to come closer to believing "in their head" that there is an objective morality...one that is connected [no less in their head] to religion. And God.

You like to talk. And talk is mostly in your head. Therefore you make no 'progress'.

I wonder: How do they accomplish this in such a way that I do not describe as either a political prejudice or as a psychological defense mechanism.

Now, your answers -- I don't know, it's not for me to decide, it's beyond my control -- are really not all that far removed from my own.

The difference being that I respond this way when asked about the afterlife and certain characteristics and actions of God. You don't even know and you can't decide about basic human interactions on Earth.

Basic interactions of course revolve around that which all of us share in common:

1] the capacity to subsist from day to day, i.e. having access to food, water, shelter2] the capacity to defend ourselves from those who might wish to do us harm

And then as a species we must embody the capacity to reproduce ourselves.

And yet even here there are conflicting moral and political narratives regarding the best way in which to attain [and then to sustain] this.

Right?

And this would seem to be true for both atheists and theists.

Now, if I'm asked how to go about this, I become entangled in my dilemma. And I certainly don't argue that there is in fact an optimal social, political and economic agenda that those who are in sync with an objective understanding of human morality are able to embody. In other words, by way of one or another deontological contraption.

Yet somehow "in your head" you argue that this objectivity is "out there" somewhere. You can't pin it down pertaining to any actual conflicting goods, but it's enough to believe that it does in fact exist. Even though you don't know what it is, it's beyond your control and it's not for you to decide.

Yet somehow or another it will all come together on one or another rendition of Judgment Day and you will either make the cut or you won't. Again, that's not for you to decide and it is beyond your control. You just don't know.

So, when I bring you down to earth and try to intertwine these "general descriptions" of human interaction as they pertain to actual conflicted human behaviors you offer us...

...this:

phyllo wrote: I think that I can know and I can decide about human interactions in some reasonable sense. And at least some characteristics of God can be determined from the nature of life on Earth.

Is it even possible to be more abstract and ambiguous and vague?!

And the bottom line of course is that every idealist [and objectivist] that has ever come down the historical pike -- ecclesiastic or secular -- says exactly the very same thing!!

After all, short of actually demonstrating that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to think and to feel and to behave as "one of us", what else is there?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

I was merely substantiating your accusation. Mere mortals [with or without God] ask questions. Why then do particular individuals ask the ones that they do? And why do particular individuals answer these questions as they do and not in some other way?

How is that relevant to the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?

You're lost in details. If science was as concerned with details as you are, then it would not be possible to discover anything.

They say that the devil is in the details. And it certainly seems reasonable to ponder the extent to which God takes into account the details of our lives. What actually does matter to Him and what doesn't?

They say that the devil is in the details. And it certainly seems reasonable to ponder the extent to which God takes into account the details of our lives. What actually does matter to Him and what doesn't?

"Reasonable to ponder"?? There is no reliable information about that. You might as well ponder Star Wars.

After all, all I can do is keep pointing out the obvious --- that the only thing at stake here is our immortality and salvation.

"Immortality and salvation" is your obsession. It might not be at stake.

For all your talk of nihilism, you sound more like an American fundie than anything else.

What are you arguing, that the broader and vaguer and more ambiguous we are about God, the closer we come to...to what exactly?

I'm arguing that some things can be known and some things can't be known, at least at this time.

You can't seem to make that distinction. You lump all things 'God' into the fabricated intellectual contraption category.

As for science, I suspect that the relationship between the very, very big and the very, very small is of fundamental importance. After all, what is knowledge of one without knowledge of the other?

But you don't know anything about science, even on a basic level. It's all Discovery Channel stuff for you - pretty pictures signifying nothing.

You accept the assumptions of science without question and therefore it appears to be objective. If you did not accept them, then you would be enveloped in the dasein of science. Everything would depend on context and it would not be understandable by analysis. You would have the same sort of dilemma that you have with respect to identity and value judgements.

One set of assumptions moves you forward and another set holds you back.

They say that the devil is in the details. And it certainly seems reasonable to ponder the extent to which God takes into account the details of our lives. What actually does matter to Him and what doesn't?

"Reasonable to ponder"?? There is no reliable information about that. You might as well ponder Star Wars.

Again, from my frame of mind, you are missing the whole point of religion.

Think about it:

Is it "reasonable to ponder" what happens to us after we die? Is it "reasonable to ponder" the fate of "I" for all of eternity?

Clearly it would seem to be. And then folks have come along over the course of human history and created any number of Gods in order to answer those questions.

Isn't that the fundamental truth about the rise of religion?

And once God becomes a part of the narrative [on this side of the grave], it seems entirely reasonable to me that the dots must be connected between the behaviors that we choose here and now and our fate there and then.

And with so much at stake -- immortality, salvation, divine justice -- how on earth could a loving, just and merciful God [as most are described] put us in the position such that we "don't know" how to behave in the world here and now; a world in which, in any event, such things are beyond our control and are not even really for us to decide. Huh?

Also, whatever that means "for all practical purposes" as it relates to a moral agenda from day to day to day.

Why on earth do you suppose that most Scriptures become quite detailed in differentiating between vice and virtue, between the saint and the sinner?

And while you speculate that "immortality and salvation" may well not be at stake here, I suspect that, among religionists, you are surely in the distinct minority.

As for science, I suspect that the relationship between the very, very big and the very, very small is of fundamental importance. After all, what is knowledge of one without knowledge of the other?

phyllo wrote:[But you don't know anything about science, even on a basic level. It's all Discovery Channel stuff for you - pretty pictures signifying nothing.

Actually, the Discovery Channel is now the Car Channel. You mean the Science Channel.

And, yes, my technical understanding of science more or less revolves around it. I don't deny it.

So, all I can do then is to invite folks who are much more sophisticated in grappling with the world of either/or here; to bring their facts and figures into a thread like this one and to speculate in turn on the manner in which science and religion are compatible.The science of morality? The science of God?

What say you about that?

Well, after consulting with James S. Saint of course.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

phyllo wrote: You accept the assumptions of science without question and therefore it appears to be objective.

No, I recognize that with respect to the really, really big questions -- why something and not nothing? why this something and not some other something? what is the nature of "mind"? do we have free will? how do we explain the part before the Big Bang? etc. -- the assumptions of scientists are just more sophisticated speculations. But is science really just around the corner from explaining -- ontologically, teleologically -- the very nature of Existence, of Reality itself?

Of factoring in "the whole truth" about God here?

And what scientist has ever really satisfactorily grappled with Hume's speculation about correlation and cause and effect?

phyllo wrote: If you did not accept them, then you would be enveloped in the dasein of science. Everything would depend on context and it would not be understandable by analysis. You would have the same sort of dilemma that you have with respect to identity and value judgements.

Again, all I can do here is to note the distinction I make between believing that something is true "in your head" and demonstrating that it is the obligation of all rational men and women to believe it too.

Science begets engineers, engineers beget technology and technology begets trips to the moon and computers and the internet. All apparently ensconced in the interactions of an either/or world.

Well, assuming of course that all of this is not just a dream some Cartesean demon is having; or we are all not just interacting in a simulated world far, far, far beyond our comprehension.

Or, sure, it's all the will of God.

Perhaps even your God, right?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Is it "reasonable to ponder" what happens to us after we die? Is it "reasonable to ponder" the fate of "I" for all of eternity?

Clearly it would seem to be.

You can ponder it the same way that you can ponder 'Star Wars'. I involves recognizing that 'Star Wars' is a work of fiction. Pondering what happens after you die based on what is written in the Bible requires recognizing that there are no other confirmations of that particular story and it may well be fiction.

On the other hand, there are parts of the Bible which are testable. You can't know if Jesus walked on water or turned water into wine, but you can try his recommendation that you forgive your brother. Does it work for you personally and does it work for society as a whole? That's not fiction. That's workable or not workable, right or wrong stuff.

And if Jesus was right about it, then he had a better understanding or people and the world (God's creations) than those around him.

And then folks have come along over the course of human history and created any number of Gods in order to answer those questions.

Isn't that the fundamental truth about the rise of religion?

On the one hand, you treat all religion as fiction.

And with so much at stake -- immortality, salvation, divine justice -- how on earth could a loving, just and merciful God [as most are described] put us in the position such that we "don't know" how to behave in the world here and now; a world in which, in any event, such things are beyond our control and are not even really for us to decide. Huh?

And on the other hand, you treat this discussion/pondering as the most important discussion in the world.

If you separated the testable/verifiable part of religion from the un-testable/un-verifiable, then you could have a productive and entertaining discussions. There would be one discussion about suggested behaviors and another discussion about the mythology.

Why on earth do you suppose that most Scriptures become quite detailed in differentiating between vice and virtue, between the saint and the sinner?

Sure, you have details of vice/virtue and saint/sinner ... which are then buried in alleged rewards and punishments in a mythical afterlife. Even Jesus was not clear about what happens in the afterlife. What he is clear about, is that a follower of Jesus (a Christian) is happy in this life. The 'reward' comes before you die.

And while you speculate that "immortality and salvation" may well not be at stake here, I suspect that, among religionists, you are surely in the distinct minority.

If you look at surveys of religious opinions, you don't see that kind of emphasis. If you look at small communities and congregations, you don't see that kind of emphasis.

Admittedly 'dasein' may be skewing my opinions since I come into contact with more Catholics and other religions than Protestants. I did live next door to two fundie families.

Actually, the Discovery Channel is now the Car Channel. You mean the Science Channel.

In the Great White North, we have the Discovery Channel and Discovery Science. I guess they rebranded it in the USA.

So, all I can do then is to invite folks who are much more sophisticated in grappling with the world of either/or here; to bring their facts and figures into a thread like this one and to speculate in turn on the manner in which science and religion are compatible.

And people try to do that until you turn it into a discussion of immortality and salvation.

Another try . Christian religion say that God created an ordered universe which humans can understand and are allowed to use. That prompts scientists to try to understand and describe the physical laws that God has created. That understanding is then used to created technology which alters our society for the better ... presumably in sync with the morality proposed by Jesus.

It doesn't seem incompatible at all.

The science of morality?

That's some kind of analysis of ethics founded in psychology and sociology. Right?

The science of God?

That's physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc ... the study of the physical world as God has created it.

No, I recognize that with respect to the really, really big questions -- why something and not nothing? why this something and not some other something? what is the nature of "mind"? do we have free will? how do we explain the part before the Big Bang? etc. -- the assumptions of scientists are just more sophisticated speculations. But is science really just around the corner from explaining -- ontologically, teleologically -- the very nature of Existence, of Reality itself?

Some of those questions are being studied. Some of those questions are unanswerable at this time, some may never be answerable and some are irrelevant for all practical purposes.

I think the question of 'free will' is completely irrelevant.

Of factoring in "the whole truth" about God here?

Okay, you will never have THE WHOLE TRUTH. People are limited. Live with it.

And what scientist has ever really satisfactorily grappled with Hume's speculation about correlation and cause and effect?

Is it "reasonable to ponder" what happens to us after we die? Is it "reasonable to ponder" the fate of "I" for all of eternity?

Clearly it would seem to be.

You can ponder it the same way that you can ponder 'Star Wars'. I involves recognizing that 'Star Wars' is a work of fiction. Pondering what happens after you die based on what is written in the Bible requires recognizing that there are no other confirmations of that particular story and it may well be fiction.

Star Wars is a piece of fiction. A La La Land Hollywood concoction where Good and Evil [like the Good Guys and the Bad Guys] are almost always effortless to spot. The Dark Side?

For many Christians, the Bible is anything but. Millions upon millions literally embody what they construe to be the word of God in order that they will attain immortality and salvation.

Actually, I am just as curious as to what you might say to them as it relates to the purpose behind this thread.

phyllo wrote: On the other hand, there are parts of the Bible which are testable. You can't know if Jesus walked on water or turned water into wine, but you can try his recommendation that you forgive your brother. Does it work for you personally and does it work for society as a whole?

That's not fiction. That's workable or not workable, right or wrong stuff.

Another "general description" of human interaction. Forgive your brother? Okay, but what is the context? What in particular has your brother done that might warrant forgiveness? And what of those who argue that what he did was unforgiveable?

How do we determine if he ought to be forgiven if our answer will be weighed by those responsible for our fate on Judgment Day? And here [of course] you are back to not knowing; of it all being beyond your control, of it all not being for you to say.

So, which is it: turn the other cheek? or an eye for an eye?

Somehow "in your head" you have thought this all through such that here and now it is what you "believe". I merely intertwine what any particular man or woman might believe about these things into my own subjective narrative. I ask them to explain [to explore] how they are not entangled in my own dilemma above.

And then folks have come along over the course of human history and created any number of Gods in order to answer those questions.

Isn't that the fundamental truth about the rise of religion?

phyllo wrote:On the one hand, you treat all religion as fiction.

No, I ask those who claim certain beliefs about God and religion to demonstrate to me why a rational person is obligated to believe the same.

After all, what else [realistically] is there in forums like this?

And with so much at stake -- immortality, salvation, divine justice -- how on earth could a loving, just and merciful God [as most are described] put us in the position such that we "don't know" how to behave in the world here and now; a world in which, in any event, such things are beyond our control and are not even really for us to decide. Huh?

phyllo wrote:And on the other hand, you treat this discussion/pondering as the most important discussion in the world.

Well, I suspect that folks who reach my age do tend [existentially] to think more and more about death and oblivion --- their fate on the other side of the grave.

I readily admit that [like you] I don't know; it's beyond my control; it's not for me to say. So, what else is there but to probe the arguments of those who are entirely less uncertain?

phyllo wrote: If you separated the testable/verifiable part of religion from the un-testable/un-verifiable, then you could have a productive and entertaining discussions. There would be one discussion about suggested behaviors and another discussion about the mythology.

Is that how it works at the Pearly Gates? "Productive and entertaining discussions" with Saint Peter first, and then God decides your fate: up or down?

Why on earth do you suppose that most Scriptures become quite detailed in differentiating between vice and virtue, between the saint and the sinner?

phyllo wrote: Even Jesus was not clear about what happens in the afterlife. What he is clear about, is that a follower of Jesus (a Christian) is happy in this life. The 'reward' comes before you die.

Come on, with respect to the actual behaviors that we human beings are always coming into conflict over, are there or are there not endlessly conflicting and contradictory assessments -- from Christians! -- regarding what it means to be "happy in this life"?

And I suspect that for most, God is more comforting regarding "all of eternity" rather than the 70 odd years that we embody on this side of the grave. Especially as that abyss looms larger and larger.

And while you speculate that "immortality and salvation" may well not be at stake here, I suspect that, among religionists, you are surely in the distinct minority.

phyllo wrote: If you look at surveys of religious opinions, you don't see that kind of emphasis. If you look at small communities and congregations, you don't see that kind of emphasis.

What then is emphasized? And how is not eventually linked to the part that revolves around immortality, salvation and divine justice?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

So, all I can do then is to invite folks who are much more sophisticated in grappling with the world of either/or here; to bring their facts and figures into a thread like this one and to speculate in turn on the manner in which science and religion are compatible.

And people try to do that until you turn it into a discussion of immortality and salvation.

Again, you force me to get technical: huh?

The entire point of creating this thread was precisely to discuss immorality and salvation as that relates to morality on this side of the grave as that relates to ones belief in God and religion.

phyllo wrote: Another try . Christian religion say that God created an ordered universe which humans can understand and are allowed to use. That prompts scientists to try to understand and describe the physical laws that God has created. That understanding is then used to created technology which alters our society for the better ... presumably in sync with the morality proposed by Jesus.

And that might make sense if so much relating to God and religion did not revolve around is/ought while so much relating to science revolves instead around either/or.

Basically what you seem to be saying is that if they really understood what Jesus was trying to tell us in the New Testament, scientists would be working with the engineers to create a technology that sustains what you construe to be a better society. Meanwhile other Christians embrace what you say here but insist that science should help to create a technology that sustains what they construe to be a better society.

So, what does Jesus have to tell us about, among other things, abortion or capital punishment or homosexuality or gun control or just wars or health care or the use of marijuana or animal rights or conscription or parenting?

What is the role of science as this pertains to, say, nuclear bombs?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

I just explained that some parts of religion can be viewed as myths and other parts can be tested.

The entire point of creating this thread was precisely to discuss immorality and salvation as that relates to morality on this side of the grave as that relates to ones belief in God and religion.

In this bunch of posts we are discussing the compatibility of science and religion. But you insist on inserting "immortality and salvation" into it ... two concepts which are either not scientifically testable or outright disproved by science at this time.

And that might make sense if so much relating to God and religion did not revolve around is/ought while so much relating to science revolves instead around either/or.

I just gave an example of how either/or and is/ought can form a whole by combining science and religion.

Basically what you seem to be saying is that if they really understood what Jesus was trying to tell us in the New Testament, scientists would be working with the engineers to create a technology that sustains what you construe to be a better society.

Scientists was been able to reconcile science and religion for hundreds of years.

No, not "what I construe to be a better society". I wasn't even alive during most of those hundreds of years.

So, what does Jesus have to tell us about, among other things, abortion or capital punishment or homosexuality or gun control or just wars or health care or the use of marijuana or animal rights or conscription or parenting?

He spoke about principles of living but apparently you don't understand how principles work. Jesus was supposed to tell you what to do about each specific abortion, etc.

Another "general description" of human interaction. Forgive your brother? Okay, but what is the context? What in particular has your brother done that might warrant forgiveness? And what of those who argue that what he did was unforgiveable?

I don't understand why principles of action or interaction are so challenging for you.

How do we determine if he ought to be forgiven if our answer will be weighed by those responsible for our fate on Judgment Day? And here [of course] you are back to not knowing; of it all being beyond your control, of it all not being for you to say.

Those principles produce results in this world before you die. I wrote about it above but you seem not to have bothered reading it.

I just explained that some parts of religion can be viewed as myths and other parts can be tested.

Yes, and I created this thread in order to explore the extent to which the test results can be communicated [demonstrated] to others.

The entire point of creating this thread was precisely to discuss immorality and salvation as that relates to morality on this side of the grave as that relates to ones belief in God and religion.

phyllo wrote: In this bunch of posts we are discussing the compatibility of science and religion. But you insist on inserting "immortality and salvation" into it ... two concepts which are either not scientifically testable or outright disproved by science at this time.

That's what you say. Though science [unlike most religions] is ever intent on going beyond the concepts of immortality and salvation. It demands that those who speak of them offer us the sort of evidence that can in fact be either verified or falsified. Evidence that can in fact be tested. Religion on the other hand revolves far more around faith. Believers embrace The Word. They try to embody The Word. And they do so because this is what is said to bring them immortality and salvation.

Again, this thread was created in order to explore any actual existential renditions of this.

Basically what you seem to be saying is that if they really understood what Jesus was trying to tell us in the New Testament, scientists would be working with the engineers to create a technology that sustains what you construe to be a better society.

phyllo wrote: Scientists [have] been able to reconcile science and religion for hundreds of years.

But not in a manner in which flesh and blood human beings are able to connect the dots between virtuous behavior on this side of the grave and immortality, salvation and divine justice on the other side of it.

Can you cite particular examples from the world of science in which actual attempts were made?

So, what does Jesus have to tell us about, among other things, abortion or capital punishment or homosexuality or gun control or just wars or health care or the use of marijuana or animal rights or conscription or parenting?

phyllo wrote: He spoke about principles of living but apparently you don't understand how principles work. Jesus was supposed to tell you what to do about each specific abortion, etc.

Right. And you can find these "principled" Christians on both sides -- on all sides -- of those issues above. For example the liberal Christians and the conservative Christians.

With many on both sides convinced that those on the other side are headed straight for Hell.

But then that's not "the right way" to think about God and religion is it?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Another "general description" of human interaction. Forgive your brother? Okay, but what is the context? What in particular has your brother done that might warrant forgiveness? And what of those who argue that what he did was unforgiveable?

I don't understand why principles of action or interaction are so challenging for you.

I don't understand why the gap between lofty principles [words] and actual human behaviors [worlds] is so challenging for you. After all, those on all sides of any number of moral and political divides will often claim to be "principled" when they go after each other.

And, in particular, the objectivists. And God help those who get in the way of any number of them, right?

You know, if there is one.

How do we determine if he ought to be forgiven if our answer will be weighed by those responsible for our fate on Judgment Day? And here [of course] you are back to not knowing; of it all being beyond your control, of it all not being for you to say.

phyllo wrote:Those principles produce results in this world before you die. I wrote about it above but you seem not to have bothered reading it.

Note to others:

Is this true? Would you be so kind as to point out the particular results that these particular principles achieved.

James believes that the spiritual life is one of the most important aspects to our humanity, and that religion is proof for this need for spirituality. So the burning question is, is the pragmatic belief in god worthy a principle in one's life or does it fall short.

The answer to this question would seem to be embedded/embodied in "I". "I" out in a particular world understood from a particular point of view. In the manner in which I have come to understand the meaning of dasein.

The "spiritual life" has never really been pinned down though. We come into this world with a set of biological imperatives. And these inherent, congenital capacities are then shaped and molded in a particular community shaped and molded in a particular historical and cultural context.

We invent a word like "spiritual" in order to encompass a frame of mind that revolves around all that comes after our basic needs are met.

We are, after all, that species of animal able to ask questions that delve into the very nature of "existence" and "reality" itself. Why does anything exist at all? Why this existence and not another? And, in asking these questions, our minds/brains are then able to produce emotional and psychological states that some call "spiritual".

God and religion then are just right around the corner.

But: what does it really mean to say that because we are able to think and to feel these things then "for all practical purposes" we need to?

In other words, we can only construe these things as being worthy or as falling short in a particular set of circumstances. Circumstances that are then ever evolving over time in a world of contingency, chance and change.

Some embrace the spiritual as fundamentally important in their lives. Others scoff at such things. Some once embraced it but now scoff, others once scoffed but now embrace it.

Still, what has never been determined or demonstrated [at least to my knowledge] is which frame of mind all reasonable/rational men and women are obligated to share.

And then [re this thread] the extent to which our obligations as rational and virtuous human beings can be translated into behaviors on this side of the grave able to be translated in turn into a particular fate on the other side of it.

Last edited by iambiguous on Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

I have only scanned a few of your posts ... got lost in the details ... I'm a small town mind with a propensity for the big picture.

A few weeks ago the image of a 45 record ... the ancient vinyl media ... stuck on a particular place ... unable to move forward ... came to mind. At the time that's how I saw you.

I still see you the same way ... yet ... perhaps I'm finally coming to understand why.

You have no choice but to stay in the same 'place' until somebody(s) finally gets it ... you have demonstrated once again that humanity is an extremely stubborn lot! Only repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition seems to penetrate a constipated consciousness.

Reminds me of something I posted recently ... addressing the question ... "Why did feudalism survive for 2,000+ years in China while the rest of the world moved on ... leaving China to ingest their dust? The only logical answer is the Chinese had to wait for the West to catch up spiritually.

Your post today is so elegant ... a careful reading reveals the subtle profundities you express with simple words.

Let me try to explain my claims:The West employed a "Freeze-Frame" strategy for their concept of God.

freeze-framenoun1.a single frame forming a motionless image from a film or videotape.

A long time ago ... a very long time ago ... the concept of a monotheistic God penetrated Western consciousness ... at that time the West created a "Freeze-Frame" ... ergo: the Bible ... the Torah ... and so on. No new revelations allowed ... the concept of God was fixed in time and space once and for all.

Contrast this with the Chinese approach. Some say the oldest book on earth is the I-Ching ... maybe and maybe not ... nonetheless the book is very likely older than the Bible.

What is the I-Ching?

A literal translation is the "Book of Change".

The Chinese realized the universe is in a constant state of flux ... they embraced this truth and attempted to find the "pulse" of the universe and dance to this "pulse".

Quelle Difference eh!

"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

pilgrim-seeker_tom wrote:You have no choice but to stay in the same 'place' until somebody(s) finally gets it ... you have demonstrated once again that humanity is an extremely stubborn lot! Only repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition seems to penetrate a constipated consciousness.

So, pertaining to God and religion, how is this not basically applicable to all of us here?

We all believe particular things are true "here and now". Some for a short period of time, others for a much longer period. Some having always basically believed the same thing, others going through any number of transformations in their beliefs.

And, in my view, we come to acquire these frames of mind based in part on the particular historical and cultural context in which, as children, we were raised. Taught to believe a particular set of assumptions about God and religion.

Then, as we grow older, we come to embody particular sets of experiences, engage in particular sets of relationships and acquire a particular confluence of information and knowledge.

All of us, right?

And then some folks -- let's call them philosophers -- stop and think about that. They wonder...

"Okay, these are all of the things that I have come to believe about God and religion over the course of the life that I have lived. Now, what am I then able to determine is actually true about God and religion such that I am able to demonstrate to others that they ought to believe the same thing?"

Really, when it comes to questions like this [and with so much at stake beyond the grave] what else is there?

And what else is there for both those in the East and those in the West? The manner in which I probed a possible explanation for the "spiritual" above is basically the same for all human beings.

The West migrated to the single God because science was able to offer explanations for the phenomena that had once been attributed to the many gods. But, with the advent of capitalism, the concept of God changed dramatically in the West. Instead of placing the focus for behavior on this side of the grave solely on the afterlife, things began to shift more to this side of it. The Protestants more or less synchronized God and capitalism.

Just as today in China, with a burgeoning state market economy, the No God of Mao's Cultural Revolution has no doubt shifted over the years. Somehow [I suspect] Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and other "spiritual" agendas there have had to be reconciled more and more with increasing materialism.

pilgrim-seeker_tom wrote:What is the I-Ching?

A literal translation is the "Book of Change".

The Chinese realized the universe is in a constant state of flux ... they embraced this truth and attempted to find the "pulse" of the universe and dance to this "pulse".

Quelle Difference eh!

Okay, what then does one who is more partial to the I-Ching, have to tell us about connecting the dots between behaviors on this side of the grave and one's fate on the other side of it? The focus of this thread.

What might the "pulse of the universe" possibly be as this pertains to human interactions that do come into conflict over value-judgments?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

1) Humanity has been 'herded' into a coral ... and the gate has been closed. Serious thinkers are trying to figure out what this unique status ... perhaps unique in all of human history ... means. No one has figured it out yet.

2) We live in what you label the "hereafter" ("the beyond the grave"). At the moment we are simply "Being Within Form" ... we are "Being" within a physical body. Our "Being" requires some kind of apparatus for transport in our physical world. Who cares what "Form" our "Being" takes on the other side of this physical reality we currently live in.

3) I'm not more partial to the I-Ching ... I remain RC ... simply see the philosophy (for lack of a better word) embodied in the I-Ching at work in the RC religion ...

After observing the universe, ancient Chinese found that the universe is changing every day. Although it changes easily every day, it also has seasonal and annual cycles. From these cycles the unchanging rules are created. However, it's not easy to use the "I-Ching" method to find the unchanging rules from the universe and apply on human activities. That's why some people think I-Ching is easy and some don't.

The RC dogma/doctrine has changed considerably in 2,000 years ... just that the changes were awfully slow in coming ... the RC ruling class has always been unable to find the "pulse" of the universe and "dance" to it in real time. Ditto for all human change/evolution.

Iambiguous ... our e-discussion may be finished ... in any event ... it's been a rare treat.

"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”